The Chronicle Recommends / Al Gore for President

Published
4:00 am PDT, Sunday, October 22, 2000

AMID PEACE, prosperity and worldwide power, American voters are about to choose a new president. These flush times are unrivaled in the nation's history, and the next occupant of the Oval Office will face a challenge to further this remarkable performance. On balance, Vice President Al Gore is the best choice for the job.

His experience as a representative, senator and vice president give him a solid foundation of knowledge and skills. He is committed to continuing the successful approaches of free trade, economic growth and centrist governance that President Clinton employed in adroitly repositioning the Democrats toward the political middle.

Gore's stands on education, the budget surplus, health care and Social Security are reasonable proposals that would extend the benefits of a booming economy to a wider range of Americans. He appeals to the best of American values in advocating basic civil rights for gays and lesbians and affirmative-action programs that help provide economic opportunity for women and minorities. He has been a strong supporter of tougher laws to keep guns away from criminals and children.

Gore also insists, rightly and unequivocally, that an abortion decision belongs to a woman and her doctor -- not the government.

His rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, is a likable candidate who expresses a determination to change the ways of Washington. But he has nowhere near the credentials of Gore as a force for change. Gore was an administration point man on NAFTA, various environmental initiatives and a drive to streamline government. Bush's abilities as a leader and far-sighted thinker are skimpy by comparison.

Normally, a strong economy would ensure that the White House stay with the incumbent party. But this race is hardly a lock for Gore and the Democrats.

The candidates seem to be trading the lead each week. The confusing war of words has led many voters to set aside issues and go with personality: the Amiable Governor versus the Beltway Boaster. It would be a mistake if the fateful choice of a president were to come down to a contest of cosmetics or congeniality.

The tumult of the debates, with all the focus on verbal slips and quibbles over policy details, sometimes obscures the pivotal nature of this year's election. In eight years, the country has swung from a $300 billion deficit to a ever-rising surplus of $221 billion. No major power threatens the United States. A jobless rate of 4 percent is at a generational low. Innovation, growth and trade are hitting new highs.

At the same time, 1 in 8 Americans lives in poverty. Public schools perform poorly. More than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, and Medicare badly needs an overhaul as the elderly population grows and health-care costs rocket up.

Both candidates recognize these issues. Bush favors a restrained role for Washington. He would use tax subsidies and private insurers to improve health care and limited expenditures to aid public classrooms. His major economic pitch is his pledge to lower taxes, with most of the savings benefits to the wealthy upper brackets.

Gore goes further by rightly recognizing the economic opportunity at hand. The surprising surplus, even if it drops lower in future years, represents a rare chance to reward everyone and rebuild ailing government.

He offers a $500 billion tax cut, though the reduction would be less than Bush's $1.3 trillion plan. Gore would also spend heavily to improve schools and hire more teachers. He would expand Medicare to pay for a new wave of effective prescription drugs not covered by the old-age program. The broad intent of Gore's economic plan is clear: the financial good times should be shared by everyone.

Internationally, the United States stands supreme. Washington has expanded NATO in Europe, overseen free-trade agreements and softened financial shocks that threatened Asia and Russia. Global trade has replaced the Cold War-military standoff as the organizing force of foreign affairs.

It will take seasoned judgment, leadership and familiarity with the world to keep the United States on top on the complex and ever-changing global challenges. Bush downplays his inexperience by arguing that he will take his cues from a cadre of expert advisers.

Gore, by contrast, offers on-the-job experience. His foreign affairs Rolodex and his extensive travels provide him with a clear advantage in anticipating problems, making judgments and in advocating America's case.

Al Gore is well prepared for the challenges of leading the United States. He has chosen a highly capable running mate in Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

Here are some key differences between the two candidates on several issues:

ENVIRONMENT:

Despite overwhelming evidence, Bush is skeptical of the dangers of global warming. He also favors gas and oil exploration in Arctic areas of Alaska now off limits. Gore opposes this drilling and is a proponent of curbs on worldwide pollution.

TRADE:

Both favor free trade. One difference: Gore is more willing to include labor and environmental agreements to bring other countries closer to U.S. standards.

SURPLUS:

The federal surplus may run up to $4 trillion in the course of the next 10 years. Gore wants to spend this sum to pay down the national debt and to offer "targeted" tax relief for a range of groups.

Bush proposes major tax cuts adding up to $1.3 trillion over a decade with the biggest breaks going to the wealthiest taxpayers.

HEALTH:

Gore favors spending heavily to offer wider insurance coverage for poor children and Medicare patients in need of prescription drugs. Bush is more tentative, favoring the use of tax credits for families to buy insurance.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

Bush wants a bigger defense budget but a reduced, restrained role for U.S. military overseas. Gore seeks a wider international role, urging Third World debt relief, an end to nuclear tests and the option of overseas humanitarian missions.